IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
|
|
- Jayson Curtis Cannon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Supreme Court Case No. CRA ) Superior Court Case No. CF Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) vs. ) OPINION ) EDWARD B. PEREZ, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Filed: February 12, 1999 Cite as: 1999 Guam 2 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and Submitted on 07 October, 1998 Hagåtña, Guam Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Richard P. Arens, Esquire Cunliffe & Cook A Professional Corporation 210 Archbishop Flores Street Hagåtña, Guam Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: David M. Moore, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 2-200E Judicial Center Bldg. 120 West O Brien Drive Hagåtña, Guam BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS and JOSE I. LEON GUERRERO, Associate Justices.
2 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 2 of 16 SIGUENZA, C.J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Edward B. Perez appeals his conviction after a jury trial. He challenges the constitutionality of the Family Violence Act, embodied in Title 9 of the Guam Code Annotated, Sections et seq., as being both void for vagueness and in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. He also assigns as error the trial court s failure to charge the jury with the statutory definition of deadly weapon and with an instruction on a lesser included offense of Family Violence. FACTS [2] Appellant was charged by the Superior Court Territorial Grand Jury, by superseding indictment, with Possession of a Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony), Possession of a Firearm Without an Identification Card (As a Felony), Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony) and Assault (As a Misdemeanor). In addition, Appellant was charged with the Special Allegation of Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Third Felony) and of Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony). [3] Jury selection and trial on the matter commenced on July 14, 1997, and at the close of evidence 1, the parties and the court discussed the instructions to be read to the jury. During that discussion, the court noted that the defendant did not file a written motion to reduce the Family 1 The defendant did not call any witnesses on his own behalf.
3 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 3 of 16 Violence felony charge to a misdemeanor, as allowed by statute. 2 Neither party requested an instruction for the misdemeanor crime of Family Violence as a lesser included offense of the felony; however, the parties, did agree to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). The jury was also instructed on the essential elements of each of the Special Allegations of the Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon during the commission of the felonies of Family Violence and Attempted Criminal Mischief; however, the statutory definition of deadly weapon was not given. [4] Appellant was acquitted of Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony) and Assault (As a Misdemeanor). He was convicted of the remaining charges including the Special Allegations of Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon during the commission of a Felony and the lesser included offense of Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). 3 A. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT [5] This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA 3107 (1994) and 8 GCA and (1993). The first question we address is whether the Family Violence Act, as contained in Title 9 of the Guam Code Annotated et seq., is constitutional. [6] The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Rambo, 74 F.3d 948, 951 (9 th Cir. 1996); United States v. Sahhar, 56 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9 th Cir. 1995); 2 "Upon a written, noticed motion prior to the commencement of trial, the defendant may move that a felony charge filed pursuant to this be reduced to a misdemeanor. Whether any charge shall proceed as a misdemeanor or a felony rests within the discretion of the court. 9 GCA 30.20(b)(1994) 3 The parties and the court below recognized a problem with the conviction for the Special Allegation of the Possession and Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of Attempted Criminal Mischief (As a Third Degree Felony) because the jury had acquitted Appellant of the underlying felony. Neither side has assigned this error on appeal.
4 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 4 of 16 United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1491 (9 th Cir.1995). 1. Void for Vagueness [7] Whether a statute is void for vagueness is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 778 (9 th Cir. 1993). It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298 (1972). Generally stated, the void for vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 (1983)(citations omitted). Although the doctrine focuses both on actual notice to citizens and arbitrary enforcement, it has been recognized that the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine is not actual notice, but the other principal element of the doctrine-the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement. Id. at 358, 103 S.Ct. at (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (1974)). [8] In Kolender, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a California penal statute challenged as vague. In evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered. Id. at 355, 103 S.Ct. at 1857 (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 494 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 (1982)). The Court looked at the construction of the statute by the lower California courts which had determined that, under the challenged terms of the statute, failure of an individual to provide credible and reliable identification permitted his arrest. Id. at , 103
5 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 5 of 16 S.Ct. at In striking down the challenged statute, the Supreme Court reasoned that the full discretion accorded to the police to determine whether the suspect has provided a credible and reliable identification necessarily entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat, and that it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. Id. at , 103 S.Ct. at [9] The crime of Family Violence, found in 9 GCA 30.20(a) (1994), provides: that [a]ny person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly commits an act of family violence, as defined in of the Chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor, or of a third degree felony. Further, section states: (a) Family violence means the occurrence of one (1) or more of the following acts by a family or household member, but does not include acts of self-defense or defense of others: 1. Attempting to cause or causing bodily injury to another family or household member; 2. Placing a family or household member in fear of bodily injury. 9 GCA 30.10(a) (1994). [10] The statute informs an individual that if he or she engages in the proscribed conduct then he or she can be prosecuted for the crime of Family Violence, as either a misdemeanor or a third degree felony. The statute further informs an individual of the following: that prosecution as a misdemeanor or a third degree felony, upon conviction, involves the possibility of incarceration and/or a fine 4 ; that 4 See 9 GCA 80.30, 80.31, 80.34, and (1993)
6 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 6 of 16 he or she will be subject to mandatory incarceration for prior convictions 5 ; or that he or she can be prosecuted for other violations of law. 6 [11] The question for this court to decide is whether 9 GCA and provide minimal guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion or do the statutes permit a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. at (citation omitted). We find that the Act provides sufficient guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion even though, on its face, it does not specifically address the prosecuting attorney. [12] The Family Violence Act is a comprehensive statutory scheme that, when viewed as a whole, demands that the prosecuting attorney take into account a defendant s ability to move for a reduction of a felony charge. In the exercise of its discretion 7, the court is permitted to entertain such a motion and is statutorily required to consider the list of seven factors in its determination of the appropriateness of a felony charge of Family Violence. 8 While not all of the factors will be 5 9 GCA 30.20(g) and (h) (1994) 6 9 GCA 30.20(e) (1994) and 9 GCA 1.22 (1993). 7 See discussion infra on Separation of Powers. 8 That provision in the statute that discusses the appropriateness of a felony charge of Family Violence states: (b) Upon a written, noticed motion prior to commencement of trial, the defendant may move that a felony charge filed pursuant to this be reduced to a misdemeanor. Whether any charge shall proceed as a misdemeanor or a felony rests within the discretion of the court. (c) In determining whether any felony charge filed pursuant to this should be reduced to a misdemeanor, the court shall consider the following factors, among others: 1. The extent or seriousness of the victim's injuries; 2. The defendant's history of violence against the same victim whether charged or uncharged; 3. The use of a gun or other weapon by the defendant; 4. The defendant's prior criminal history; 5. The victim's attitude and conduct regarding the incident;
7 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 7 of 16 applicable to every case, those that are should be carefully evaluated. Because of the court s duty to consider those factors, a defendant s motion is necessarily predicated upon the same factors. Likewise, the prosecuting attorney must take into consideration those factors that guide a court s discretion because failure to do so would clearly make a felony charge of Family Violence vulnerable to a successful motion to reduce. [13] Thus, we disagree with Appellant s conclusion that the Family Violence Act is unconstitutionally vague. We hold that the statute adequately informs an individual of the proscribed activity; and more importantly, that it provides specific guidelines that discourage the arbitrary enforcement of the statute by the prosecuting attorney. This is accomplished by delineating factors, relative to the determination of whether a felony or misdemeanor charge of Family Violence proceeds through the court system, that the prosecutor must take into account when making the charging decision. 2. Separation of Powers Doctrine [14] The next question is whether a violation of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers occurs by allowing the court to determine whether a Family Violence charge shall proceed as a misdemeanor or felony. 6. The involvement of alcohol or other substance, and the defendant's history of substance abuse as reflected in the defendant's criminal history and other sources; and 7. The defendant's history of and amenability to counselling. (d) If the court, after hearing, finds substantial evidence that a victim suffered serious bodily injury as defined in subsection (c) of of this title, no felony charged filed under this shall be reduced to a misdemeanor unless the court finds that due to unusual circumstances a reduction of the charge is manifestly in the interest of justice. 9 GCA 30.20(b), (c) and (d) (1994).
8 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 8 of 16 [15] Until Guam creates its own Constitution, the Organic Act of Guam is the equivalent of Guam s Constitution. Bordallo v. Baldwin, 624 F.2d 932, 934 (9 th Cir. 1980). The Organic Act specifically provides that [t]he government of Guam shall consist of three branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial U.S.C. 1421(a) (1992). By its very language, therefore, the Organic Act requires application of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers to government of Guam functions. Taisipic v. Marion, 1996 Guam 9, 26 (citation omitted). Through strict adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers, courts throughout the United States have sought to protect the legislative and executive branches of government from judicial interference. Id. at 27.
9 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 9 of 16 [16] In Taisipic, the lower court had ordered the Appellee into a program that was available only to offenders who had been granted parole. The Territorial Parole Board had not yet granted parole to Appellee and it appealed the court s order on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine and that the relief ordered was erroneous. This court reversed the lower court s order. We found that the lower court s order impermissibly encroached upon the Territorial Parole Board s power to grant or deny parole and that it had usurped the power of the Guam Legislature, which vested authority over parole determinations in the Parole Board and not in the courts. Id. at 33. [17] The United States Supreme Court set forth a framework for evaluating separation of powers challenges: In determining whether the Act disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. Only where the potential for disruption is present must we then determine whether the impact is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 443, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 2790 (1977)(citation omitted). Thus, two separate elements must be evaluated: (1) whether the statutory provision prevents the accomplishment of constitutional functions and (2) if so, whether the disruptive impact is justified by any overriding constitutional need. [18] Examination of the instant statute does not lead to the conclusion that a usurpation of the constitutional function of the executive, that is the authority to charge or not charge a person with a criminal offense, occurs. Indeed, the decision to allow a case to proceed upon the felony or misdemeanor charge is a judicial function. When the decision to prosecute has been made, the process which leads to acquittal or sentencing is fundamentally judicial in nature, or, to state it in
10 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 10 of 16 another way, when the jurisdiction of the court has been properly invoked by the filing of a criminal charge, the disposition of that charge becomes a judicial responsibility. State v. Jones, 689 P. 2d 561, 564 (Ariz. 1984)(citing People v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 11 Cal. 3d 59, 113 Cal. Rptr. 21, 520 P. 2d 405 (1974)). [19] Therefore, because we find no disruption of the charging function of the executive, the second prong of the inquiry need not be addressed and we hold that the instant statute does not violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine. B. JURY INSTRUCTIONS [20] Appellant assigns as error the trial court s failure to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the lesser included offense of Family Violence (as a Misdemeanor) and to provide the jury with the statutory definition of deadly weapon. [21] When there is no objection to the jury instructions at the time of trial, the court of appeals will review only for plain error. United States v. Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421, 1431 (9 th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820,830 (9 th Cir. 1995). Plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights. United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9 th Cir. 1991); See also 8 GCA 90.19(c) and (1993). Such error will be found only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Ponce, 51 F.3d at Lesser Included Offense [22] We begin the analysis by determining whether the misdemeanor crime of Family Violence is a lesser included offense of the felony charge and then whether the court below should have given
11 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 11 of 16 the instruction. A lesser included offense is defined in 8 GCA which provides: Guilt of Included Offense Permitted: Defined. (a) The jury, or the judge if a jury trial is waived, may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of which is included in that with which he is charged. (b) An offense is included under Subsection (a) when: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; (2) It consists of an attempt or solicitation to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein; or (3) It differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission. 8 GCA (1993). [23] The misdemeanor crime of Family Violence can be established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the felony charge and it also differs from the felony in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury suffices to establish its commission. As such, Family Violence (As a Misdemeanor) is a lesser included offense of Family Violence (As a Third Degree Felony). [24] Guam law requires the instruction on a lesser included offense when there is a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense. See 8 GCA (1993). Due process does not automatically require the giving of lesser included offense instructions. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2389 (1980). Due process requires the giving of a lesser included instruction only when the evidence warrants it. Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 611, 102 S.Ct. 2049, 2053 (1982). There must be evidence which
12 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 12 of 16 would permit the jury rationally to find a defendant guilty of the lesser included offense and to acquit on the greater offense before he or she is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, , 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1009 (1965). Thus, to be entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) the lesser offense is within the offense charged, and (2) based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense but not the greater. United States v. Wagner, 834 F.2d 1474, 1487 (9 th Cir. 1987)(citations omitted). The trial court is in a better position to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to give a lesser included offense instruction, and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal without an abuse of discretion. Id. (citations omitted) [25] In the instant case, we do not see how a rational jury could have acquitted the Appellant of the more serious crime and convict him of the lesser included offense when, other than the degree of offense, there is no distinguishing fact that would have justified a choice between the two. See Sansome, 380 U.S. at , 85 S.Ct. at 1009 (a lesser offense charge is not proper where, on the evidence presented, the factual issues to be resolved by the jury are the same as to both the lesser and greater offenses). The gravamen of the charge against Appellant was that he had recklessly placed a family member in fear of bodily injury. There is no issue as to whether a more serious or less serious type of injury was sustained by the victim. The evidence adduced at trial indicated that there was a confrontation between the victim and Appellant; and that during the course of the confrontation Appellant pointed a handgun at the victim and fired it at him. The victim testified that, at the time when the Appellant fired the weapon at him, he thought he was a goner. 9 A witness to the incident testified that he had witnessed the confrontation between the victim and Appellant, 9 Tr., Vol. II at 104.
13 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 13 of 16 that the Appellant said he was going to kill the victim, and that the Appellant had discharged a firearm. 10 [26] As the court below noted, the Appellant did not file a written motion for reduction of the felony charge pursuant to statute. 11 See 9 GCA 30.20(b) (1994). Because Appellant did not avail himself of the opportunity to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor, rather than as a felony, there must not have been some distinguishing fact in the circumstances of the incident that would have justified proceeding on the lower charge. Moreover, if the fact that the possession and use of a firearm in the incident would have justified the court s refusal to reduce this felony to a misdemeanor then it can not be said that the judge would have committed error by refusing to put a charge of the lesser degree of the charged offense before this jury. [27] Therefore, we hold that the court below did not have to instruct the jury, sua sponte on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor Family Violence. 2. Definition of Deadly Weapon [28] Appellant next charges as error the trial court s omission of the definition of deadly weapon in its instruction to the jury. Neither the prosecution nor defense offered an instruction. The court properly instructed the jury with the essential elements of the Special Allegation, but it did not provide the statutory definition of deadly weapon. [29] The general rule is that when terms have no technical meaning peculiar to the law, but are commonly understood by those familiar with the English language, instructions as to their meaning 10 Tr., Vol. III at Tr., Vol. III at 60.
14 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 14 of 16 are not required. People v. Anderson, 51 Cal. Rptr. 238, 242, 64 Cal. 3d 633, 414 P. 2d 366 (1966). [30] Under Guam law, a deadly weapon is defined as [a]ny firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to the defendant to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. 9 GCA 16.10(d) (1993) (emphasis added). [31] The court instructed the jury on the definition of firearm and the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find that a deadly weapon, a firearm, was used in the commission of the felony of Family Violence. No evidence of the use of something other than a firearm was before the jury that would have necessitated further clarification of the term deadly weapon. Accordingly, we find no error in omitting the statutory definition to the jury. C. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL [32] Finally, Appellant argues that defense counsel s failure to request certain jury instructions rendered his assistance ineffective. [33] Whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law reviewed de novo. People v. Quintanilla, 1998 Guam 17, 9; United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383, 1387 (9 th Cir. 1996). Generally, it is more appropriate that such claims are raised in a habeas proceedings. This permits the trial judge first to decide whether the claim has merit, and second, if it does, to develop a record as to what counsel did, why it was done, and what, if any, prejudice resulted. See United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991). A reviewing court may address the merits of an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal if the record is sufficiently complete to allow a decision of the issue. Id. (citations omitted). In People v. Quintanilla, 1998
15 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 15 of 16 Guam 17, this court first addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and adopted the bifurcated test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct (1984). Id. at 8. First, it must be demonstrated that (1) trial counsel s performance was deficient, and (2) that this deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. In establishing whether the first prong is satisfied, the appellant must demonstrate that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 9. The court must determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. In making that determination, the court should keep in mind that counsel s function, as elaborated in prevailing professional norms, is to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular case. At the same time, the court should recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. (citation omitted). [34] The only instance of alleged deficiency with counsel in this appeal concerns his failure to request certain jury instructions. With respect to the failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of Family Violence our review of the record leads us to believe that it was counsel s strategic choice to forego the instruction. During the discussion about the felony charge of Family Violence, counsel had moved for acquittal on the basis that the prosecution failed to put forth evidence that justified the felony 12, and counsel had even made an offer, which was rebuffed by the prosecutor, to discuss the reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor 13. It is quite plausible that it was counsel s strategy to demonstrate to the jury that the felony charge of Family Violence was extreme and unreasonable and that the misdemeanor assault charge was perhaps all that could have been proven by the evidence. 12 Tr., Vol. III at Tr., Vol. II at 92.
16 People v. Perez, 1999 Guam 2, Opinion Page 16 of 16 Thus, his decision not to request for the lesser included offense of Family Violence may have been tactically designed to offer the jury a choice between a more reasonable, less onerous misdemeanor assault versus an extreme and unreasonable Family Violence felony. Likewise, we find no error in his failure to request for the statutory definition of deadly weapon. [35] Thus, because we do not find deficient performance by counsel there is no need to address the second prong of the Strickland test which requires a showing that the deficient performance by counsel had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case. CONCLUSION [36] We therefore AFFIRM Appellant s conviction. Nunc pro tunc to 07 October, JANET HEALY WEEKS JOSE I. LEON GUERRERO Associate Justice Associate Justice PETER C. SIGUENZA Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Petitioner-Appellee
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Petitioner-Appellee vs. EDUARDO C. BITANGA, Director of Corrections, Government of Guam Respondent-Appellant Supreme Court Case No. CVA99-024 Superior Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. SIDNEY DULEI BORJA, ) Supreme Court Case No. CVA ) Superior Court Case No. SP Petitioner-Appellant,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM SIDNEY DULEI BORJA, Supreme Court Case No. CVA 97-053 Superior Court Case No. SP0051-95 Petitioner-Appellant, vs. EDUARDO C. BITANGA, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NATHAN G. AGUIRRE, OPINION. Filed: December 1, Cite as: 2004 Guam 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NATHAN G. AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA03-004 Superior Court Case No. CF0325-95 OPINION Filed: December 1,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2004 Guam 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Supreme Court Case No. CRA03-003 Superior Court Case No. CF0428-94 Cite as: 2004 Guam
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM Plaintiff-Appellee. vs. DONICIO M. SAN NICOLAS Defendant-Appellant OPINION. Filed: February 28, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DONICIO M. SAN NICOLAS Defendant-Appellant OPINION Filed: February 28, 2001 Cite as: 2001 Guam 4 Supreme Court Case No. CRA00-0005 Superior
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary
To: New Jersey Law Revision Commission From: Samuel M. Silver; John Cannel Re: Bail Jumping, Affirmative Defense and Appearance Date: February 11, 2019 M E M O R A N D U M Executive Summary A person set
More informationBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT S MOTION TO REVIEW DISTRICT COURT S DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2294 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT S MOTION
More informationCHAPTER 30 FAMILY VIOLENCE
CHAPTER 30 FAMILY VIOLENCE 30.10. Definitions. 30.20. Family Violence. 30.21. Conditions of Release. 30.30. Powers and Duties of Peace Officers to Arrest for Crimes Involving Family Violence; Determination
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, QUINTON ANDREW PRESCOTT BEZON, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUINTON ANDREW PRESCOTT BEZON, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA17-015 Superior Court Case No.: CF0650-15 OPINION
More informationSTATE OF OHIO NABIL N. JAFFAL
[Cite as State v. Jaffal, 2010-Ohio-4999.] [Vacated opinion. Please see 2011-Ohio-419.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93142 STATE OF
More informationCHAPTER 19 ASSAULT, RECKLESS ENDANGERING, TERRORIZING
CHAPTER 19 ASSAULT, RECKLESS ENDANGERING, TERRORIZING 19.10. General Definitions. 19.20. Aggravated Assault; Defined and Punished. 19.30. Assault; Defined and Punished. 19.40. Reckless Conduct; Defined
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, ADAM JIM HILL, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2018 Guam 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADAM JIM HILL, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA16-009 Superior Court Case No. CF0297-14 OPINION Cite as: 2018 Guam 3 Appeal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT People v. Dillard 1 (decided February 21, 2006) Troy Dillard was convicted of manslaughter on May 17, 2001, and sentenced as a second felony
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman TRAVIS W. PRICE United States Air Force ACM
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman TRAVIS W. PRICE United States Air Force 09 May 2013 Sentence adjudged 20 July 2011 by GCM convened at B uckley Air Force
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr WTM-GRS-1
Case: 17-10473 Date Filed: 04/04/2019 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10473 D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00154-WTM-GRS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 14, 2017 v No. 334634 Wayne Circuit Court ARIUS PINKSTON, LC No. 15-008091-01-FH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :... O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666.] STATE OF OHIO : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 02CA116 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 02CR104 BRIAN R. HOUS : (Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 8, 2015 Session KENTAVIS JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-14-251 Donald H. Allen, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS Nos. PD 0287 11, PD 0288 11 CRYSTAL MICHELLE WATSON and JACK WAYNE SMITH, Appellants v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANTS PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2003 v No. 244518 Wayne Circuit Court KEVIN GRIMES, LC No. 01-008789 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 8, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 324150 Kent Circuit Court JOHN F GASPER, LC No. 14-004093-AR Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, EUGENE BENAVENTE GOMIA, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2017 Guam 13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENE BENAVENTE GOMIA, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA16-004 Superior Court Case No. CF0200-15 OPINION Cite as: 2017
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIMACK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT The State of New Hampshire v. Owen Labrie No. 14-CR-617 ORDER The defendant, Owen Labrie, was tried on one count of certain uses of computer services
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO O P I N I O N APPELLEE, CASE NOS.
[Cite as State v. Lee, 180 Ohio App.3d 739, 2009-Ohio-299.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-06 v. LEE, O P I N I O N APPELLEE.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 2, 2017 v No. 328310 Oakland Circuit Court COREY DEQUAN BROOME, LC No. 2015-253574-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN V. ALISASIS Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Filed: July 25, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN V. ALISASIS Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA03-006 Superior Court Case No.: CF0302-95 OPINION Filed: July 25, 2006
More informationCase 2:11-cv DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00416-DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION BUSHCO, a Utah Corp., COMPANIONS, L.L.C., and TT II, Inc., Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTHUR SALAS ROOT, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Filed: October 14, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTHUR SALAS ROOT, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA04-002 Superior Court Case No. CM0004-04 OPINION Filed: October
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, ZACHARY RICHARD ULLOA CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION. Filed: May 7, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZACHARY RICHARD ULLOA CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellee. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA03-002 Superior Court Case No.: CF0070-02 OPINION Filed:
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 2018 v No. 335070 Wayne Circuit Court DASHAWN JESSIE WALLACE, LC
More informationCase 1:14-cr CRC Document 92 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v.
Case 1:14-cr-00141-CRC Document 92 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : v. : 14-cr-141 (CRC) : AHMED ABU KHATALLAH : DEFENDANT
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 822
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 SESSION LAW 2005-145 HOUSE BILL 822 AN ACT TO AMEND STATE LAW REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO CONFORM WITH THE UNITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Apr 20 2016 15:53:20 2015-CP-00893-COA Pages: 30 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ERNIE WHITE APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-00893-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationSETH NELSON. Plaintiff STATE OF OHIO. Defendant Case No WI. Judge Joseph T. Clark DECISION
[Cite as Nelson v. State, 2010-Ohio-1777.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us SETH
More information2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2010 v No. 292958 Wayne Circuit Court LEQUIN DEANDRE ANDERSON, LC No. 09-003797-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, JANICE G. SHIMIZU, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2017 Guam 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JANICE G. SHIMIZU, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Cite as: 2017 Guam 11 Supreme Court Case No.: CRA15-034 Superior Court Case No.:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY EDD WINFIELD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY EDD WINFIELD An Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 206983-206984 Douglas A. Meyer, Judge No. E1996-00012-SC-R11-CD
More informationPlaintiff-Appellee, CARMELITA M. GUIAO, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court No SCC-0002-CRM Superior Court No
Notice: This order has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any event of discrepancies
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102
[Cite as State v. Kemper, 2004-Ohio-6055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 2002-CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 v. : T.C. Case Nos. 01-CR-495 And
More informationMOTION TO DECLARE [TEEN SEX STATUTE] UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED AND TO DISMISS THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CHILD
STATE OF DISTRICT COURT DIVISION JUVENILE BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF, A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN CASE NO.: MOTION TO DECLARE [TEEN SEX STATUTE] UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED AND TO DISMISS THE CHARGES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAVID T.A. MATTINGLY Mattingly Legal, LLC Lafayette, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana BRIAN REITZ Deputy Attorney General
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Dent, 2008-Ohio-660.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 23855 Appellee v. LEONARD DENT Appellant APPEAL FROM
More informationPacket Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background
Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Review from Introduction to Law The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 16, 2017 v No. 332956 Luce Circuit Court KAY MARGARET OBERLE, LC No. 15-001257-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More information***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY APPEARANCES
[Cite as State v. Clark, 2002-Ohio-6684.] ***Please see Nunc Pro Tunc Entry at 2003-Ohio-826.*** IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PICKAWAY COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee
Case: 15-40264 Document: 00513225763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 No. 15-40264 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAYMOND ESTRADA,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-08-0363-PR Appellee, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-CR 07-0448 MARK ALLEN FREENEY, ) ) Maricopa County
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-06-CR-W-FJG ) MICHAEL FITZWATER, ) ) ) Defendant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 23, 2016 v No. 324284 Kalamazoo Circuit Court ANTHONY GEROME GINN, LC No. 2014-000697-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEREINO
More informationCase 3:15-cr EMC Document 83 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case :-cr-00-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BAIRES-REYES, Defendant. Case No. -cr-00-emc- ORDER
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case: 14-6294 Document: 22 Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 1 No. 14-6294 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ANTHONY GRAYER, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-01-CR-W-FJG ) WILLIAM ENEFF, ) ) ) Defendant. )
More informationv No Berrien Circuit Court Family Division
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S In re THOMAS LEE COLLINS. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 20, 2018 v No. 337855 Berrien Circuit Court
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 49 1
Article 49. Pleadings and Joinder. 15A-921. Pleadings in criminal cases. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the following may serve as pleadings of the State in criminal cases: (1) Citation. (2)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM Appellant, v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005 DAVID CHRISTOPHER BOSTIC, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-3270 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 13, 2005
More informationem; oj,!r.icimumd on g ftu.mdaq, tire 18t1t daq, oj, CJchJ&Jt, 2018.
VIRGINIA: :Jn tire SUP'tem &nvd oj, VVtginia fu1d at tire SUP'tem &nvd 9Juilding in tire em; oj,!r.icimumd on g ftu.mdaq, tire 18t1t daq, oj, CJchJ&Jt, 2018. Present: Lemons, C.l., Goodwyn, Mims, McClanahan,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: August 17, 2012 Docket No. 30,788 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ADRIAN NANCO, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-00106-01-CR-W-DW TIMOTHY RUNNELS, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT
More informationCERTIFICATION PROCEEDING
CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING PURPOSE: TO ALLOW A JUVENILE COURT TO WAIVE ITS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER A JUVENILE TO ADULT CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE ALLEGED
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed February 29, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-153 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationWhen a State Felony is not A Federal Felony. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder
When a State Felony is not A Federal Felony Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder Federal Felony Definition, generally: a conviction punishable by a term that exceeds one year imprisonment If the term exceeding
More informationCRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS. February 2017
CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS February 2017 Prepared for the Supreme Court of Nevada by Ben Graham Governmental Advisor to the Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts 775-684-1719
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Peterson, 2008-Ohio-4239.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90263 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DAMIEN PETERSON
More informationJARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices JARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No. 052128 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Jarrit M. Rawls
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. MARK STEVEN JOHNSON Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. MARK STEVEN JOHNSON Defendant/Appellee. Criminal Case No. CRA 96-003 Filed: June 22, 1997 Cite as:
More informationPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
E-Filed Document Jun 26 2018 15:21:02 2016-CT-00932-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIE PICKETT PETITIONER v. No. 2016-KA-932 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE PETITION FOR
More informationCAREER SERVICE BOARD, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORAOO
CAREER SERVICE BOARD, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORAOO Appeal No. 42-07 A FINDINGS AND ORDER IN THE MATIER OF THE APPEAL OF: JOHN LUNA, Appellant/Petitioner, vs. DENVER SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 16, 2012 v No. 305016 St. Clair Circuit Court JORGE DIAZ, JR., LC No. 10-002269-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 3:17-cr SI Document 67 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:17-cr-00431-SI Document 67 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAT QUOC DO, Case No. 3:17-cr-431-SI OPINION AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 2, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 2, 2016 ALVIN WALLER, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-14-297 Donald H.
More informationAGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and
LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-17-00366-CR NO. 09-17-00367-CR EX PARTE JOSEPH BOYD On Appeal from the 1A District Court Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 13,067 and
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. White, 2013-Ohio-5423.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99375 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GEORGE WHITE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, No. 07-5151 v. N.D.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, JEFFREY RODRIGUEZ BALUYOT, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2016 Guam 20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY RODRIGUEZ BALUYOT, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA15-025 Superior Court Case No.: CF0256-14 OPINION Cite
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Lockhart, 2013-Ohio-3441.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon.
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Petty and Alston Argued at Salem, Virginia DERICK ANTOINE JOHNSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 2919-08-3 JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR. MAY 18, 2010 COMMONWEALTH
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TAKENDRICK CAMPBELL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4698
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 29, 2002 9:10 a.m. v No. 225747 Arenac Circuit Court TIMOTHY JOSEPH BOOMER, LC No. 99-006546-AR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 17. September Term, 1995 MACK TYRONE BURRELL STATE OF MARYLAND
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 17 September Term, 1995 MACK TYRONE BURRELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker JJ. Opinion by Karwacki, J. Filed: November
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 27, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 27, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DAVID CLINTON YORK Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Clay County No. 4028 Lillie
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, JEREMY REY LESLIE, Defendant- Appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, JEREMY REY LESLIE, Defendant- Appellant. Supreme Court Case No.: CRA11-001 Superior Court Case No.: CF0633-09 OPINION Cite as: 2011
More informationSuperior Court of Washington For Pierce County
Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County State of Washington, Plaintiff vs.. Defendant No. Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Sex Offense (STTDFG) 1. My true name is:. 2. My age is:. 3.
More informationPRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Russell, S.JJ.
PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Russell, S.JJ. DWAYNE JAMAR BROWN OPINION BY v. Record No. 090161 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN January 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF
More informationSERIOUS YOUTH OFFENDER PROCESS PAUL WAKE JULY 2014
SERIOUS YOUTH OFFENDER PROCESS PAUL WAKE JULY 2014 Under the Serious Youth Offender Act, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds charged with any of the offenses listed in Utah Code 78A-6-702(1) 1 can be transferred
More information[J-41D-2017] [OAJC:Saylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION
[J-41D-2017] [OAJCSaylor, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. ANGEL ANTHONY RESTO, Appellee No. 86 MAP 2016 Appeal from the Order of the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 34,112
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More information2012 PA Super 224. OPINION BY DONOHUE, J.: Filed: October 15, Appellant, Michael Norley ( Norley ), appeals from the judgment of
2012 PA Super 224 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : MICHAEL NORLEY, : : Appellant : No. 526 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November
More informationDocket No Agenda 7-January THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. CLIFTON MORGAN, Appellee. Opinion filed January 24, 2003.
Docket No. 90891-Agenda 7-January 2002. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. CLIFTON MORGAN, Appellee. Opinion filed January 24, 2003. CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW delivered the opinion of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V. CAUSE NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Aug 5 2014 01:08:18 2014-CA-00054-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DENNIS TERRY HUTCHINS APPELLANT V. CAUSE NO. 2014-CA-00054-COA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 28, 2016 v No. 325970 Oakland Circuit Court DESHON MARCEL SESSION, LC No. 2014-250037-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSABINE CONSOLIDATED, INC., APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, AP- PELLEE; JOSEPH TANTILLO, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, AP- PELLEE
SABINE CONSOLIDATED, INC., APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, AP- PELLEE; JOSEPH TANTILLO, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, AP- PELLEE Nos. 3-87-051-CR, 3-87-055-CR COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, Third District,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Griffith, 2013-Ohio-256.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97366 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RICKY C. GRIFFITH
More informationPUBLIC INFORMATION. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PLACED ON THE GUAM FAMILY VIOLENCE REGISTRY
PUBLIC INFORMATION. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PLACED ON THE GUAM FAMILY VIOLENCE REGISTRY (This information SHALL be placed onto the public registry pursuant to 30.200(c)) Full Name, to include Alias
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 CHRISTOPHER KING, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-3801 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 7, 2001 Appeal
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information